An attempt to help explain the mysteries and magic that are part and parcel of 'probation'.

Friday, 23 August 2013

Democracy Under Threat

I sometimes wonder if the political class in this country think the Electorate are basically thick, because there really can't be any other explanation for the content of the draft Transparency of Lobbying, non-Party Campaigning, and Trade Union Administration Bill.Described by the TUC as "an outrageous attack on freedom of speech worthy of an authoritarian dictatorship" a press release explains:-The Bill makes three changes to the regulation of campaigning by non-party organisation in the 12 months before a general election. Breaching these will become a criminal offence. The three changes are:

* Changing the definition of what counts as campaigning. At present only activities designed with the intent of influencing an election result are regulated. The Bill will instead regulate activity that may affect the result of an election. As any criticism of government policy could affect how people vote, this will severely limit any organisation's ability to criticise government policies in the run up to an election - not just unions, but charities, NGOs and local campaign groups too.* Reducing the spending limit for third party campaigners to £390,000. The amount that third party campaign groups can spend in the year before an election is reduced by more than half to £390,000.* Including staff time and office costs in expenditure limits. Presently only the costs of election directed materials and activities such as leaflets and advertisements are regulated.The Bill proposes that staff time and other costs should now be included in the limit. As the costs of all organisations involved in an event are added together and this total counts against the limit for each group involved, the TUC's 2014 Congress, or a national demonstration, would not just take the TUC over the annual limit but each member union. While the TUC's Congress will be regulated, political party conferences are given an exemption in election spending limits.TUC General Secretary Frances O'Grady said: "It's an open secret at Westminster that this rushed Bill has nothing to do with cleaning up lobbying or getting big money out of politics. Instead it is a crude and politically partisan attack on trade unions, particularly those who affiliate to the Labour Party.

"But it has been drawn so widely that its chilling effect will be to shut down dissent for the year before an election. No organisation that criticises a government policy will be able to overdraw their limited ration of dissent without fearing a visit from the police.The Bill was published as Parliament broke up for the summer, and is to be debated as soon as MPs return with a second reading on 3 September. The Committee stage will take place on the floor of the House the week after - the same time as the TUC's 2013 Congress.The government has broken pledges that the lobbying bill would be published in draft form and subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Select Committee. Even though the restrictions on third party campaigning make the Bill a constitutional measure, there has been no consultation process or cross-party talks.It's not just the TUC that smell a rat in this shabby bill. 38 Degrees, the brilliantly successful campaigning group, think the bill is aimed at reigning in their activities as well:-The government’s rushing through a new law which, if it passes, will stop us running the type of campaigns which have made us who we are. The campaigns which have saved our forests, fought privatisation in the NHS, and defeated the snoopers' charter. The campaigns which have seen 1.7 million of us act together, locally and nationally, for over four years. In fact, if the new law passes, and we continue campaigning as we do now, the office team could even risk being sent to jail. The law's called the 'Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill'. And if it goes through without any changes, it’ll wipe out our campaigning by slashing what we can spend during the year before elections. Not just general elections, either. Local elections, European elections and referendums, too.People power is at the heart of 38 Degrees. We don't spend too much, but our campaigns do cost money. Without being able to spend - employing staff, buying billboards, or printing leaflets about where politicians stand on local issues - we just won’t be able to make the issues which matter to us all, like the NHS and fair taxation, top of the agenda at the next election.

The three main political parties have a combined membership of around 433,000. There are 1.7 million of us. Per member, the parties would be able to spend over £130 - 38 Degrees would be able to spend around 23p. Put simply, this will make it hard to influence the next election, and every one after that.It’s not clear whether this law is just badly written, or if the government is simply fed up of being criticised - but it’s a huge threat. And it doesn’t only affect us: from big charities to tiny single-issue campaigns, the sector is scared and furious.

The government’s trying to slip this through with as little fuss as possible. Not only did they introduce it on the day before MPs knocked off for the summer, they also tied it into a whole raft of other new rules on lobbying. And some of the new rules, like the register of lobbyists, are things we’ve been pushing for, although they’re not yet strong enough. We still hope to campaign for tighter controls on dodgy lobbying - but before that, we have to fight to make sure we're not silenced during elections.I'm pretty clear that the political class are rattled by the power of the internet and organisations like 38 Degrees ability to mount campaigns. The old political party system is waning and politicians of all persuasions don't like it. If we'd have woken up to the changes in democratic processes earlier, I think we might have been able to stop the privatisation of probation. We didn't though and there was too little time for a campaign to gain traction involving a little-known and understood public service, in stark contrast to the reaction over possible privatisation of the Fire Service. Too late for us, but lets make sure it's not too late for other campaigns. Join 38 Degrees or write to the minister involved, Chloe Smith MP. A comprehensive list of other great campaigns can be found here.PS As reported in Civil Society today, major charities are concerned and have written to the minister through NCVO.

13 comments:

This is a genuine question, as I can't recall it being discussed anywhere - but wouldn't this bill regulate activity that is in favour of Government policy as well? So wouldn't all those right-wing think tanks like Policy Exchange, and the rabid small-staters at the Tax Payer's Alliance, be limited by it too?

I'm not suggesting that's a good thing, by the way, since this seems to be an appallingly bad piece of legislation - but it does, hopefully, raise hopes of a very odd coalition to oppose it.

EVERY member is entitled to attend all national General meetings which is the supreme policy making body of the organisation and also to attend to EVERY local branch meeting.

Every member is entitled to vote in ballots to elect national and local officials and the General Secretary.

Every member is entitled to instigate policy by way of a motion to their local branch or national general meeting. The constitution also allows for members (I think - it is a while since I checked ) to collectively instigate the convention of a national and probably also branch meeting(I don't recall that bit)

Every member is entitled to seek nomination to serve as a branch or national officer and/or committee member.

http://naponewsonline.org/2013/07/23/how-to-construct-a-motion/

I cannot quickly locate a copy of the national Napo constitution on line, but one should be available on request from the Napo headquarters office in Chivalry Road, Battersea, London and probably local branch offices as well.

Yes but members pay for a General Secretary and staff and for their pay the members expect both a service and leadership! Napo have been short-changed for quite some time and dare I say since the departure of Judy McKnight! We still await the verdict of the Employment Tribunal into the shenanigans at Chivalry Road, a time during which I think Tom Rendon was sharing leadership, and he hopes to be re-elected?

I agree that many criticisms of Napo seem valid, but everything to do with Napo (apart from the behaviour of individuals) is the collective responsibility of all the members. If Napo officials and staff behave badly over an extended time - it might be connected with inadequate support and oversight from the rest of us.

I know that on many times it has been difficult to find enough people willing to serve Napo at a branch and national level - yet we the members did not amend the constitution to change what we collectively attempt to do.

As for the subscription amount - it is set either by the general meeting or the National Executive Committee(made up of people elected by the whole membership - who bother to vote)

I fear too many of us have paid too little attention for too long a period.

I have some sympathy for the current incumbents of positions of responsibility in Napo as this really is the biggest crisis - as far as I am concerned Napo and Probation have ever faced, certainly since I became a member in 1974.

I concede that I have not played a full part in Napo, despite having held branch positions on a number of occasions and attended a considerable number of annual meetings. I am now as a retired probation officer and associate member, no longer actively involved.

So typical of this Government....I have been completely bemused this week at the reporting of the GCSE issues - Mr Gove wanted them tests to be harder, so they were made harder, we presume, and he must be ringing his hands in glee, as there has been a second year reduction in grades A-C. Then, schools, because they are bright and creative people find a way for 'every child to matter' whereby they allow children to enter the examine early, and if they pass great, as they can then concentrate on other subjects which require their attention; if they don't they can always try again in the spring/summer. Oh the elite glasses are now up in arms, suggesting people should not be sitting multiple exams, in their efforts to increase their chances of achieving A-C. As a ex-school Govenror, everything about a school and everything about a student is measured against A-C grades; so it is hardly surprising that schools have found a way to assist their students...cos that's what they are paid to do. Now Mr Goove (as it is pronounced I think) is now looking for a way to demean those students who needed more than one chance, or perhaps just took the first exam when feeling extremely ill or stressed. He, like Mr Failing are both prize pricks - both out to keep people of a certain class - above the rest of us. Today's post is just another example of knee jerk reaction politics - in their far right and self serving way, they don't believe people can see them for what they are and play them at their own game; consequently, you get the 'Transparency of Lobbying, non-Party Campaigning, and Trade Union Administration Bill' - Bollocks and I am just about to pen my letter to my own MP and Ms Smith.

It's My Blog

Welcome to the wonderful world of probation! These are the personal thoughts of an ordinary probation officer struggling to come to terms with constant change, whilst trying to do a useful job for society. Sadly, change is so often obviously not progress. I am fully aware that my views do not represent official policy of government, my Service or possibly anyone else - but hey - it's my blog!

ATV 1962 Windsor Davies

About Me

A grumpy, disillusioned, CQSW trained, generic, main grade probation officer based in a small English town. All my contemporaries have either left, retired or been promoted. Newer colleagues simply don't understand the journey I've been on from advise, assist and befriend. (If there is anyone of similar name in the NAPO handbook, it's not me).